Global Warming descisions - Which foot to shoot?

Which foot to shoot?

A summary of the decisions that need to be made concerning global warming.

As of early 2007 the global warming debate has some fairly definitive lines drawn as far as what is the cause.
On one side there is strong support that global warming has been accelerated by human inventions and activity, I like to refer to this side of the debate as "Gorebal Warming" because former vise president Al Gore has made this side into a very public personal crusade.
On the other side there is equally strong support that global warming is completely natural and human activity has had little or no effect on it. I've been calling this side of the debate "Global Wettening" because the key theory behind this side is an increase in water vapor in the upper atmosphere, which traps more heat, but for simplicity I'll call this side the "Naturals".
There is a third, much weaker side, that says global warming simply isn't happening, but this debate is now easily proven inaccurate at best. I'll call this side "Global Ostridges" just for fun.

One could go insane examining the two larger sides of this very complicated debate. Key words like "political agenda", "con", "myth", "junk science" and "swindle" get tossed back and fourth like a ball in a tennis match. That and there is so much pre-interpreted data to sift though on each side that they could easily make this subject into a doctorate program at Stanford University.

If we put aside for a moment all of the debate on who is right, who is wrong and why it is happening, we are then left with an underlying question: "What should we do?"
The "Gorebal's" say we need to make drastic changes to our inventions and activities to prevent this from getting worse.
The "Naturals" say we need to do nothing except prepare for the inevitable changes that are going to come.
The "Ostridges" keep trying to ignore the whole thing, although that is getting harder and harder to do.

While it is, in principal, a simple question, the answers tend to dive right back into the debate again. Rather than get back into that lets look at the math behind the possible answers...

The Gorebal equation: Drop what you are doing and start working on changing all of our inventions so they're effect on the Earth's biosphere is as little as possible.
This is going to cost a lot, although it's hard to argue that the benefits will be unwelcomed in the future.
IF the Gorebal debate is correct then we may well have just saved ourselves from our own previous short sightedness.
IF the Naturals debate is correct, well we may have just shot our self in the right foot because we used a lot of resources and the original problem still exists.

The Naturals equation: Continue on using the same inventions and be prepared for some bad weather.
This won't cost all that much more than what we are spending now but we will also continue outputting the same waste from our inventions.
IF the Naturals debate is correct then we just try and tough out the weather using whatever resources we can.
IF the Gorebal debate is correct then we may have just shot ourselves in the left foot because it is going to require twice the effort and resources to try and reverse the damage by the time we realize that the Gorebal's were correct.

The Ostridges don't have enough facts to support an equation.

So according to the math it's 50/50, toss up a coin, which foot would you rather shoot?

But humans do not base decisions on math alone, there is also philosophy, and philosophy in this particular situation states: "it is always wise to err on the side of caution" even if, as Aristotle puts it, "erring on the side of caution is still erring". It is better to have tried and failed then to fail without having tried at all.

With that said, even though I personally side with the Naturals in the debate, the Gorebal solution to the question of "What should we do?" is unquestionably correct. With any luck we may not have to shoot either foot, but even if we do we will still have made an attempt, and that attempt can only benefit us, or the next life forms to inhabit the planet, after the weather gets back to a comfortable temperature again.


Thanks for reading and the floor is now open to discuss the question of "What should we do?", but please don't turn this thread into yet another "Gorebal" vs "Naturals" theory debate.

Good post and a very accurate summary of the current situation. Though you did leave out one side, and thats the side that believe both Antropogenic GW is happening and is a serious threat yet we diverge from the Gore camp in how severe we think the effects will be.

I disagree with you when you say the ostridge side is the weakest, the Moderates are the weakest as they are continually stereotyped as "Fence-sitters" or "Wishy-washy centrist" or "Someone who's afraid to take a side". There people are usually the Hardcore scientists that balk equally at An Inconvenient Truth(for minor inaccuracies and fearmongering) as much they fear such things as The Great Global Warming Swindle as a film whose sole purpose is to sow Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about the whole phenomenon in the first place.

And people wonder why I feel Science should be mandatory to grade 12 just like English is.

Thanks for reading and the floor is now open to discuss the question of "What should we do?", but please don't turn this thread into yet another "Gorebal" vs "Naturals" theory debate.

Now THAT is funny.

Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree with you when you say the ostridge side is the weakest, the Moderates are the weakest as they are continually stereotyped as "Fence-sitters" or "Wishy-washy centrist" or "Someone who's afraid to take a side". There people are usually the Hardcore scientists that balk equally at An Inconvenient Truth(for minor inaccuracies and fearmongering) as much they fear such things as The Great Global Warming Swindle as a film whose sole purpose is to sow Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about the whole phenomenon in the first place.

Thanks for the compliment!

You are right that the lines of debate are not quite as clearly defined as I portrayed. The sensationalists in me hoped by condensing it down to three, that I could drive the bottom line point home a little better.
This is unquestionably a very complex subject. Case in point: I was reading this article yesterday about the Great Global Warming Swindle which I thought was pretty good. Then I decided to lookup S. Fred Singer and was shocked to learn how corrupt and sided he is with big business. His babble about "Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall" is pure BS to protect his own interests NOW. He could give a rats testicle about the future.

Down at the bottom of that 2nd link shows some fairly indisputable weather facts that support the existence of some sort of warming trend, be it global or not.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Nemithesis]